because big government is not the answer

President Lee Myung-bak has met with a key U.S. intelligence official at Cheong Wa Dae to discuss the situation in North Korea and bilateral issues between Seoul and Washington, sources said Monday.

The secret visit by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appears to be aimed at addressing changing security conditions in Northeast Asia following North Korean leader Kim Jong-il’s recent visit to China.

So how do you deal with all the missed climate forecasts, among them the computer simulations that make throwing darts blindfolded seem more scientific?

You heed Camping. After his prophecy went poof, the 89-year-old minister went on his California radio show, said there was a “spiritual” judgment May 21 and revealed the world would definitely conclude its business Oct. 21.

Likewise, the computer simulators are ever revising content, rearranging old prognostications to comply with past reality and telling us that if not all transpired exactly as they originally said, stay tuned. It will next time.

The moral of this tale is not that we should rule out the possibility of serious danger posed by global warming that may have been largely instigated by humankind, but that our ignorance is far greater than facile talk of a “scientific consensus” would have you believe. Wrong responses could be more disastrous than warming, with no effect on thermometers.

Like this:

And who can blame Rowan Dean? Is the ad aimed at people with the IQ of an average eight year old on purpose?

Forget about who’s starring in the carbon tax ad. Is it any good as an effective piece of advertising?

Thus far, all the attention has focused on the appropriateness of having a multimillionairess and Hollywood superstar appearing on behalf of the average Aussie.

Both actor Michael Caton and Cate Blanchett have hurried into the fray to inform us that they, too, have a right to speak on behalf of the issue. Of course, they do. But it’s irrelevant. And doesn’t answer the question. Is the ad any good?

In terms of generating awareness, the ad has been a blockbuster. There can hardly be a person in Australia who has not seen or heard of the ad by now. Job well done.

But awareness is a double-edged sword, and in this instance the impact of having our most famous actress appearing, and then being criticised for appearing, has managed to “vampire” the message itself. The discussion is about Cate, not carbon. From an advertising point of view, this becomes a problem.

Seriously, how stupid must they think we are; that by simply paying a massive omnibus of a tax – and that’s what it will eventually have to be – that that will somehow affect global climate, even whilst India and China thumb their noses and say thanks at the same time for all the new jobs and industry ($$$) we’ll send them.

What should a responsible Skeptic say to an astute audience? When recently invited by the “Technology, Engineering, and Science Plus” group in my community to give a talk and answer questions, I knew I would have an attentive room of tech-savvy professionals. However, they might not be fully tuned in to the details of the Global Warming controversy. Furthermore, they were likely to have opinions closer to the supposed “mainsteam science” [sic] orientation than mine.

So far, we’re looking at an inquiry and just those 11 Indonesian abattoir’s being denied our business. Several bloggers have suggested Australia build, staff and maintain its own abattoirs in Indonesia.

Agreed, but why stop there? Is anyone seriously thinking only 11 abattoirs in the entire world that process Australian meat are doing so in such a barbaric manner?